This election season, the voting wars have raged on in various courts across the nation, with decisions that will have very real consequences for voters in the coming midterm elections. From Arkansas to Georgia, a mixed bag of laws, lawsuits, and court rulings have left Americans confused as to who can vote, how they can vote, and when they can vote. In the past month, the Supreme Court has made the final call about what new voting laws will be used this year in a number of states, including Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin.As midterm candidates take sides leading up to Election Day, the debate over voting has become a hotbed for political rhetoric, and buzzwords like “voter suppression” and “electoral integrity.” In the meantime, voters can only look on and watch their voting rights make various disappearing and reappearing acts in a political magic show run by courts and politicians.How can a basic, fundamental right such as voting be so contentious (and fragile) in our democracy? The answer, as FairVote has pointed out for years, and as advocates like Norm Ornstein and Matt Yglesias argue, is that our right to vote has protection as an affirmative right to vote only at the state level. That’s right – we currently do not have an explicit federal right to vote. This absence is the underlying reason for this current disruptive period of electoral chaos.Ohio and North CarolinaThe U.S. Supreme Court was first asked to weigh in on voting changes in cases coming out of Ohio and North Carolina. In Ohio, a federal judge ruled that new changes, such as reducing the early voting period, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as they had a disproportionate impact on voters of color. The 6th circuit upheld suspending these changes for the upcoming midterm election. On Sept. 29th, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling in a 5-4 vote.In North Carolina, a trial judge upheld a series of new voting laws with changes such as discarding ballots cast in the wrong precinct and ending same-day voter registration during early voting. The 4th Circuit then ruled against the implementation of those changes, however, on Oct. 8th the Supreme Court again greenlighted the changes.Voter ID Laws in Texas, Arkansas, and WisconsinIn Texas, the state’s voter ID law was given a reprieve by the 5th Circuit, and then ultimately the Supreme Court on October 18th, despite Justice Ginsberg’s strongly worded dissent. This law will be in place on Election Day, after originally being struck down by a federal judge in a 147-page opinion a week earlier. Unfortunately, in the case of Texas, an estimated 600,000 citizens do not have an ID required by the new law and will not be able to vote.Arkansas is a different story. Basing its ruling on the right to vote as enumerated in the state’s constitution, the Arkansas Supreme Court on Oct. 15th found a voter ID law passed by the state’s legislature unconstitutional. The decision was split 5-4 along party lines, however, and could have gone the other way if judges had chosen to cite federal precedent – a practice known as “lockstepping”-- which can weaken rights protected at a state level more easily than those protected at a federal level.Such was the case in Wisconsin just a few months ago, when a 5-4 conservative majority on the state’s highest court bypassed the right to vote in the Wisconsin Constitution and upheld a similar voter ID law, citing various precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court under the federal Equal Protection Clause. A federal district court originally overturned the voter ID law in April, however, the 7th Circuit issued a stay on that ruling which, in turn, was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on Oct. 9th. (Are you confused yet? Just imagine how Wisconsin voters feel.) As a result, the law will not be in effect until after election season when the Supreme Court will either consider the case on its merits or refuse to hear it. In a related twist, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner has since reversed his personal opinion of the law, and wrote a scathing dissent upon having his request to have the 7th Circuit rehear the case voted down in a 5-5 split.Confusion in GeorgiaIn a different, but similarly exasperating version of “Electoral Chaos”, Georgia remains tangled in lawsuitsfrom thousands of voters infuriated as their registration applications have not been processed. The New Georgia Project and the NAACP are fighting on behalf of voters in the lawsuits, but it is unclear if the issue will be resolved by Election Day when Georgians will vote in a key Senate race.The Solution: A Constitutional Right to VoteWhile requiring a photo ID to vote does not by itself infringe on voting rights, it certainly can if the state does not first make sure that every eligible voter actually has the necessary ID. A constitutional right to vote would require states establishing ID requirements to take steps to make sure the new law does not disenfranchise eligible voters, such as creating reasonable backups like the signature requirements allowed for absentee voters, or ensuring every eligible voter has a valid ID. A right to vote amendment would also give courts the authority and responsibility to ensure every eligible voter’s voice was heard in contentious situations like the one currently playing out in Georgia.Without a federal right to vote, the voting wars will continue to be waged, state by state, across the nation. It’s time to change that. House Joint Resolution 44, introduced this past year by U.S. House Members Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison, would amend the constitution to establish an explicit, individual right to vote. Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow PUSH Coalition are leading an effort to get major cities to pass resolutions backing the amendment, joining those that have passed resolutions as part of FairVote’s Promote Our Vote project. By taking action, Congress would be empowered to enact minimum electoral standards to guarantee a higher degree of legitimacy, inclusivity, and consistency across the nation. Separate and unequal elections among our thousands of voting jurisdictions would no longer be allowed.Even with the election less than two weeks away, expect new state disputes over electoral laws. Good resources for tracking these changes include the Brennan Center, Advancement Project, and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. The Lawyers’ Committee also has a website and phone hotline to help voters dealing with voting problems.It’s time: We need a constitutional amendment establishing an explicit, individual right to vote to end the voting wars once and for all. Only then will every vote and every voice be heard in every election, and our democracy fulfill its promise. To learn more, read FairVote’s extensive resources, and take action by visiting RightToVoteAmendment.com and our Promote Our Vote project.

As a believer in the power of an inclusive democracy, and someone who proudly calls the state of Wisconsin home, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision last week to uphold the state’s controversial voter ID requirement was disappointing. The law itself, which requires voters to have certain forms of photo ID in order to cast a vote, is problematic because it has the potential to reduce statewide voter turnout, as not every citizen is automatically issued the required identification upon reaching voting age; and not every citizen keeps an active driver’s license as they grow older. Furthermore, it will have a disproportionate impact among low-income and minority voters who are less likely to have a valid photo ID. Under the new law these voters will be forced to obtain a “free” voter ID from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). FairVote does not oppose all forms of photo ID laws, but believes that such laws should be crafted so that eligible voters are never denied a fair chance to participate. While the ID itself is technically free under Wisconsin law, many of the personal documents (such as a birth certificate) that are needed to obtain a valid photo ID require fees. In this way, the law - as written - would essentially act as a poll tax, requiring some voters to pay to cast a ballot. In the slightly reconstructed version of the law upheld by the court, citizens unable to afford those documents will not have to pay any fee; however it is still unclear how that determination will be made by the DMV and applied to voters seeking a photo ID. Regardless, a new hurdle between voters and the ballot box has been constructed, and now supported by the state’s highest court, despite new studies showing an astounding lack of evidence of impersonation fraud at the polls - the only kind of voter fraud potentially addressed by this voter ID law. The manner in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court reached its decision sheds light on a broader concern: as law professor and Promote Our Vote advisory committee member Josh Douglas has noted, the absence of an explicit right to vote in the U.S. Constitution often leads state courts to weaken voting protections in state constitutions. While various federal constitutional amendments have expanded protections of the right, none of those amendments establishes voting as a fundamental right, leaving voting rights vulnerable to restrictive laws that serve partisan politics. The result in this case, and in many others across the nation, is that some voters are left on the outside looking in and facing significant burdens at the ballot box. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision is a painful reminder of this shortcoming of the U.S. Constitution. Like nearly all states, the Wisconsin Constitution grants an explicit right to vote for every citizen of voting age. Nevertheless, the disparity between the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution left room for the 5-4 majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court to cite various precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court under the federal Equal Protection Clause, and consider only whether the law was written to be administered equally. This resulted in their decision to uphold the voter ID law and bypass the explicit individual right to vote enumerated in the Wisconsin Constitution. While the law in question would be administered “equally” among Wisconsin citizens, in that no citizen is exempt from the photo ID requirement, the fact remains that the burden placed on some Wisconsin voters violates their explicit right to vote under the state constitution. This merging of the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions in the court’s decision-making process is known as “lockstepping,” a consequence of the absence of an explicit right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. The Court’s decision illustrates that even an explicit right to vote in a state constitution is not enough to protect voters. Without that right explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, restrictive voting laws and political interests will continue to pose a threat to the individual right to vote, as there are numerous ways that ballot access can be weakened or become a part of the partisan fray. Political actors from across the spectrum are often tempted to exploit these weaknesses in the name of partisan politics, and to the detriment of individual voting rights. FairVote has been a national leader in advocating for amending the U.S. Constitution to explicitly grant an individual right to vote. Last year we held events with the lead congressional sponsors of House Joint Resolution 44, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would establish an explicit, individual right to vote for all American citizens, including Wisconsin’s own Mark Pocan. We are also building support for the bill through our Promote Our Vote project, which involves local governments and campuses passing resolutions backing the amendment and pledging to do everything they can to uphold voting rights and encourage voter participation. Just last week, a resolution was passed unanimously in Cincinnati after Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. testified to the city council.A constitutional right to vote would guarantee the voting rights of every eligible citizen; defend against attempts to disenfranchise individual voters; and in the context of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision, it would ensure that court rulings reflect the American ideal that an individual right to vote is of paramount importance in any inclusive democracy. Please consider contacting your Member of Congress in support of H.J. Resolution 44, and back a Promote Our Vote resolution in your community today.

This blogpost features Montgomery County, Maryland, a locality with more than a million residents, and its effort to uphold the right to vote. Last fall, the County passed its version of our model Promote Our Vote resolution that supported a constitutional right to vote and created a Right to Vote task force. The task force’s report is a strong document and includes such FairVote-backed proposals as ranked choice voting and more inclusive voter registration practices. A foundational principle of FairVote’s Promote Our Vote project is that the best place to effect change is often at the community level. Local elections are fraught with the highest rates of racial discrimination and the lowest and most disparate rates of voter turnout, yet local governments are particularly well suited to develop creative solutions that tackle these problems - especially when they are motivated by the conviction that voting is a fundamental right. The Montgomery County Council’s support for voting rights is a prime example of how localities can advance better elections. The Council unanimously passed a Promote Our Vote resolution last fall. The resolution called for a constitutional right to vote and established a Right to Vote Task Force. Charged with identifying methods to improve county elections, the Task Force has 14 members who reflect the county’s political diversity, as no more than two thirds of the members are registered with the same political party. Created in December, the task force met regularly over the following months, with committees doing a great deal of work, but every recommendation needing super-majority support. The Task Force also made several recommendations for immediate action that were acted upon by the county’s Board of Elections for the June 2014 primary.In June 2014 the Task Force published its final report and recommendations. The extensive report consists of 59 recommendations that illustrate how a breadth of creative practices and policies can flow from Promote Our Vote resolutions. FairVote’s executive director Rob Richie commented, “Promote Our Vote resolutions help communities think outside-of-the-box. Once communities make a commitment to upholding the right to vote, they become more open to creative solutions for increased turnout, better voter access, and extended suffrage rights.” Some of the Task Force’s most innovative suggestions are listed below:Ranked Choice Voting“The Task Force recommends that the County Council adopt ranked choice voting for county elections. The Council can phase in ranked choice voting starting with the Council’s at-large seats, school board elections, or primary elections.” (Montgomery Co. Task Force Report, 43).By a near-unanimous vote of 11-1, the Task Force recommended instituting ranked choice voting for primary and general elections for county offices -- meaning the one-winner “instant runoff” method for electing one candidate and the multi-winner “fair representation” method for electing the four at-large seats on the county council. Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates on their ballot in order of preference. If no candidate receives majority support when electing one candidate, the candidate with the fewest number of first choice votes is eliminated, and those ballots are added to the totals of the voter's second choice candidate. This method is repeated until a candidate acquires a majority of votes, and that candidate wins. The system works similarly when electing more than one candidate, but the threshold of support to win a seat is reduced based on the number of seats.

The Task Force proposed ranked choice voting because it believes the system will engender more inclusive campaigns. To win under a ranked choice voting system, candidates must reach out to more voters, and the most successful candidates are ones that are particularly effective in direct contact with voters. Ranked choice voting also eliminates vote splitting, which is when two preferred and often ideologically similar candidates split the majority of votes, causing a less preferred candidate to win. By reducing vote splitting, ranked choice voting preserves voter preference,elects more representative candidates, and minimizes wasted votes.Improving Online Registration“The Task Force recommends that Maryland modify the online voter registration system to allow individuals without state IDs from the Motor Vehicle Administration to register online by providing a signature through an electronically captured image” (12).The Task Force recommended changes to Maryland’s online voter registration program. In order to register to vote using Maryland’s current online system, residents must possess a driver’s license or other state identification, as the state adds the signature on a resident’s identification document to their profile in the statewide registration database. Concerned that many residents who want to register online do not have the required documents – like 16- and 17-year-olds who pre-register to vote and college students – the Task Force recommended that the state change its policy to exclude the identification requirement. Because this condition is not in place for other registration methods, such as voter registration by mail or at a government agency, the Task Force argued it should not be in place for online registration. As an alternative, the Task Force recommends the Board of Elections admit electronic signatures (11).Expanding Suffrage Rights to Disenfranchised GroupsAdults with Felony Convictions“The Task Force recommends that the County Council encourage the Maryland General Assembly to change state law to restore voting rights to residents with felony convictions who have served their time in prison and pre-release programs but who are still serving a term of probation or parole” (60).“The Task Force recommends that the County Council encourage the Maryland General Assembly to change state law to allow incarcerated felons who are Maryland residents the option to register to vote during the pre-release phase before parole and probation. That ‘pending’ registration should become active automatically on the date the person becomes eligible” (60).The Task Force recommended extending voting rights to people with felony convictions who have served their time. Under Maryland’s current law, people with felony convictions have their voting rights restored once they have served their prison sentence and completed both parole or probation. This law disenfranchises almost 60,000 Maryland residents (59). As an alternative to this policy, the Task Force recommends that people with felony convictions have their voting rights suspended only while serving their time in prison and pre-release programs, and no longer during probation or parole.This change has the potential to reduce the time it takes to restore voting rights to people with felony convictions. The separate recommendation to enact “pending” registrations for those people in the pre-release phase immediately before probation and parole would further speed up this process. Should people with felony convictions choose to register to vote during their pre-release phase, their registration would activate automatically upon their release date. If implemented, the Task Force’s recommendations on felony disenfranchisement could boost voter turnout among people with felony convictions in Maryland, and help them rejoin the voting community.Noncitizen Permanent Residents“The Task Force recommends that Montgomery County request the State of Maryland to allow each county to determine its own public policy with respect to the voting rights of noncitizens with permanent resident visas in county elections” (57).“The Task Force recommends that Montgomery County allow noncitizens with permanent resident visas to vote in county elections if state law is changed to allow noncitizens to vote” (57).Maryland is unique in the fact that its municipalities have significant autonomy over local elections. As a result, cities in Maryland can act as laboratories of democracy, implementing creative practices and policies to improve local election processes. One such policy that has been adopted by six Maryland localities is permanent resident voting, also known as immigrant voting and noncitizen voting. The premise of this policy is that permanent residents have a stake in local government and should thus be permitted to vote.While Maryland municipalities have a lot of leeway when it comes to electoral process, counties have a more limited scope. With this in mind, the Task Force recommends the that Montgomery County advocate less stringent state control over its elections so it can enact permanent resident voting. The Task Force points out that the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit noncitizens from voting, but rather leaves this policy decision up to each individual state (56).FairVote remains neutral on this policy, but believes such experiments are valuable to building a more fair and representative democracy. Promote Our Vote resolutions cover over nearly two million Maryland residents and 70 thousand Florida students. For more information about local resolutions, visit www.promoteourvote.com.

Low voter turnout is commonplace for America’s 22 largest cities. In mayoral elections taking place from 2008 through 2011, no city had a turnout of more than 45% of registered voters -- which translates into an even lower figure among eligible voters. Of those 22 elections, 15 cities had mayoral voter turnout under 33%, and ten cities experienced a turnout under 20%. In San Antonio and El Paso, turnout lingered in the single digits. To underscore those facts: the mayors of nearly half of America’s largest cities were elected by less than one in five registered voters – and in two of these cities more than nine in ten registered voters stay home. San Diego had an impressive turnout rate of 76.98% during its 2012 general election, which can be attributed to its being held in tandem with the 2012 Presidential election. The resignation of San Diego’s elected mayor, however, led to a more recent special election that received a much lower turnout rate of 43.58%. Local primary and runoff elections see even worse rates of participation. Seven of these cities held primary elections to nominate mayoral candidates. Turnout in these primaries did not pass 40%. Five of the largest 22 cities held runoff elections with turnout floundering at 39%. The city with the second highest turnout in its most recent election was San Francisco, with a relatively strong 42%. San Francisco is also the only city of the 22 to use the instant runoff voting (IRV) form of ranked choice voting in its mayoral elections. Even when it doesn't bring new voters to the polls, IRV typically means one single, decisive election takes place when the most voters are likely to participate. San Jose will be holding an election for mayor this November. Riding on the coattails of November midterm elections, San Jose’s rate of voter turnout will likely soar to the top of the charts. With these dismal turnout rates, it's clear that we should have a national conversation about participation in non-presidential elections -- as FairVote is doing with its new Promote Our Vote project, with specific ideas for how cities can take action to spark higher turnout.Click here for a spreadsheet containing turnout data for these 22 cities for their last three elections, including primaries, first rounds, and special elections.

Florida students are taking a stand against restrictive voting laws and organizing for pro-suffrage practices and policies.

Florida has been a critical battleground in the voting wars. In 2011, the state legislature and Governor Rick Scott passed H.B. 1355. The 128-page bill made sweeping changes to the state’s election laws. Passed along party lines, the bill shrank the early voting window, weakened absentee voting, and made it more difficult for people with new addresses to vote. The Scott administration also made attempts to purge thousands of names from the voter rolls in 2012.

Many of these changes have affected young people at the polls, spurring students to lead the charge for voting rights in Florida. Two weeks ago, we reported that the Florida State University student government had passed a Right to Vote Resolution targeting H.B. 1355 and calling for an explicit constitutional right to vote.

FSU is not alone. The Student Government Association at Palm Beach State College (PBSC) has also passed a resolution for the repeal of H.B. 1355 and the establishment of a state task force on voter access.

“Natural greater access to voting is a solution [for students],” said Yury Konnikov, president of the Florida Initiative for Electoral Reform (FLIER). “Particularly in light of cynical legislative efforts to discourage that constituency from voting.”

Access became a rallying point for students after the Florida Division of Elections, which is run by a Governor Rick Scott appointee, denied the University of Florida (UF) an early voting site on campus in the 2014 municipal elections. This decision motivated students, like Darlene Rodick, to take action. Rodick, a member of the PBSC Student Government Association, voiced support for same-day voter registration and putting early voting locations on campuses.“Student governments are constantly trying to get students registered to vote and to encourage voting,” Konnikov said. “At the same time, they’re being criticized by the establishment for having an apathetic constituency.”Taking advocacy efforts one step further, the resolution called on Congress to enshrine a right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, which has the potential to preclude restrictive voting laws in states. Since there is no right to vote in the Constitution, strict scrutiny is not applied to changes in state voting laws. If that changed, courts would have to find a compelling state interest to maintain laws that impede voting rights.

Students are not alone in seeking structural change to protect voting rights. Proposed legislation in the Florida legislature has the same goal. House Bill 1073 would strengthen the right to vote in Florida’s state constitution. House Memorial 1283 would urge Congress to propose to the states an amendment to the U.S. Constitution for an affirmative right to vote.

______

Palm Beach State College’s resolution was modeled on FairVote’s Promote Our Vote project’s resources. Students received help organizing from the Florida Initiative for Electoral Reform. Learn about other communities that are taking proactive steps to improve voting at PromoteOurVote.com, and find out how you can get involved in your community.

Arkansas’ new voter ID law, which would have required voters to show photo ID in order to vote, was struck down last week by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox. In his decision, Fox cited the Arkansas Constitution’s guarantee of “free exercise of the right of suffrage”. He argued that by requiring voters to show photo identification that right is impaired, rendering the law unconstitutional.

The Arkansas Attorney General has agreed to appeal the ruling on behalf of the State Board of Election Commissioners. The Board and the state Republican Party have also asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to stay the ruling to allow the law to remain in place for the May primary election. They argue that the law is intended to reduce voter fraud, and that the upcoming election could not be fairly conducted without it.

Everyone has a right to vote in fair and free elections, and in an ideal world voters would all be provided with photo identification to use at the polls. But in reality, many groups of voters are less likely to possess photo ID and will therefore have limited ability to participate in our democracy under a voter ID law.

The debate over voter ID laws reflects a broader issue: the lack of an explicit right to vote in the U.S. Constitution means that each state has its own interpretation of who should have suffrage. State authority over voting makes it difficult for voters to know their rights, and provides many opportunities for voters to be disenfranchised, whether intentionally or not.

FairVote advocates for the amendment of the U.S. Constitution to include an individual right to vote for all. A right to vote amendment would prevent individual voters from being disenfranchised by restrictive laws, and establish a universal standard to which state voting laws could be held. Amending the Constitution would further reaffirm that voting is a right, not a privilege, and reduce confusion by creating consistency between federal, state, and local levels when it comes to voting.

To learn more about how FairVote is working to expand suffrage and protect voter access, visit our Promote Our Vote website.

Florida State University (FSU) students are organizing to combat statewide voting policies that restrict student access. Their target is Florida’s 2011 House Bill 1355, a 128-page bill that made sweeping changes to the state’s election laws. Passed along party lines, the bill shrank the early voting window, weakened absentee voting, placed new restrictions on voter registration drives, and made it more difficult for people with new addresses to vote. The FSU student government passed a Right to Vote Resolution that takes aim at HB 1355. It states:We call on the Florida Legislature to repeal House Bill 1355, which places an undue burden on organizations that register voters… We call on the Florida Legislature and Governor Rick Scott to reinstate early voting for at least 14 days before an election. Many Florida students feel targeted by the state’s restrictive voting laws, explained Jerry Funt, president of the Progress Coalition at FSU. These concerns crystalized when the Division of Elections, which is run by an appointee of Governor Scott, denied the University of Florida (UF) an early voting site on campus in the 2014 municipal elections. Student access problems became a rallying cry for university activists. “Without freedom to participate, government fails to represent a lot of people,” Funt said. Funt and members of his organization became the main proponents of the FSU resolution, which took the fight one step further by seeking a constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. The resolution further reads: We call on members of the Florida Legislature to strengthen the right to vote stated in Section 2 of the Constitution of Florida through statute… We call on our members of Congress, and our representatives in the state legislature, to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would grant an explicit right to vote to every American citizen of voting age. A constitutional amendment would protect the right to vote and would encumber Florida’s ability to pass suppressive voting bills like HB 1355. This is because, as a constitutional right, any change in voting would be subject to strict scrutiny review by courts, which require a compelling state interest. “Currently, changes in laws regarding voting are not held to [strict] scrutiny,” Funt explained. FSU is not alone in seeking structural means to strengthen voting rights in Florida. Members of the Florida State Legislature are following suit through the introduction of two bills: House Memorial 1283 calls for a federal right to vote and House Bill 1073 would strengthen the state right to vote. On the national level, House Joint Resolution 44 would enshrine an individual right to vote in the Constitution. The passage of these bills would be “monumental,” Funt said, and his organization is set to “continue pushing” them until they succeed.___

FSU’s resolution was modeled on FairVote’s Promote Our Vote project’s resources. Students received help organizing from the Florida Initiative for Electoral Reform. Learn about other communities that are taking proactive steps to improve voting at PromoteOurVote.com, and find out how you can get involved in your community.

Last September, Montgomery County, Maryland took proactive steps toward improving its elections by unanimously passing a right to vote resolution and establishing a citizen’s task force on voting issues. The decision was welcomed by national and community leaders such as Senator Ben Cardin, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, and D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray at an event following the Council vote.Right to vote resolutions are community organizing tools offered by FairVote’s Promote Our Vote project. Their purpose is to spur community dialogue and concrete changes in policy to ensure fair and equitable voting rights. One reform resulting from the Montgomery County resolution was the establishment of a citizen’s task force charged with proposing plans for a new voter registration program, promoting early voting and same-day registration, and recommending changes in state and local ballot practices.

Fixing our electoral system is key to solving the greater challenges facing the country, according to Montgomery County task force member Mary Rooker. “I’m convinced that without structural changes, we’re not going to see much in the way of change,” Rooker explained.

With the release of its interim report on February 24th, the task force has set ambitious goals for the county’s elections, including adopting automatic voter registration, preventing partisan redistricting, improving civic outreach, bolstering voter turnout, and expanding civic education programs. The group has also announced plans to explore expanded suffrage for youths and people with felony convictions, ways to reduce wait times at the polls, and more inclusive ballot access laws.To accomplish its goals, the 14 member task force is divided into three subcommittees that focus on voting rights, registration, and access. In keeping with the council’s provision that no party can comprise more than two thirds of the task force, members include Democrats, Republicans, an Independent, and one member of the Green Party.

Stephen Mortellaro, who serves with Rooker on the Voting Rights Subcommittee, believes that communities have a key role to play in promoting and protecting the right to vote. “If we have groups of people who are disenfranchised… then we’re not really living up to the expectations of a democratic government,” said Mortellaro.At a time when many jurisdictions around the country are making it more difficult to vote, the Montgomery County task force is striving for improved turnout, protected access, and expanded suffrage. “The Montgomery County task force is an example of how local government can counteract negative trends in practice and law, and spark a new suffrage movement -- and the county’s not alone,” Said Rob Richie, FairVote Executive Director. Local governments, campuses, and organizations across the country are working to advance pro-suffrage measures. Takoma Park, MD, and Prince George's County, MD, passed right to vote resolutions in 2013. In 2014, two Florida universities adopted these resolutions and the Florida State Legislature is considering a statewide resolution. Several resolutions and task forces are in the pipeline in states like Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina, as well as in Washington, DC. Learn more and get involved at www.promoteourvote.com

Robust voter participation is an essential element of a healthy democracy. Without it, a small minority of citizens can control representation, to the exclusion of the majority. Different types of elections draw widely varying levels of voter interest. Dismal voter participation is a near certainty in primary elections, off-year elections for state legislatures, and municipal elections. This primary season is no exception, as demonstrated by Texas’ March 4thprimary elections, where the votes of a few will once again determine who governs the many.

Texas has become known for its particularly low levels of political participation and civic engagement. A report released in 2013 by the National Conference on Citizenship and Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life at The University of Texas ranked the state last in the United States for civic health. The study found that Texas has lagged behind the national average for voter turnout in every national election since 1972. In 2012, the state ranked dead last in voter turnout. Texas’ March 4th primary elections for governor, state legislature, and U.S. congressional seats did not demonstrate any improvement. The statewide turnout for Texas’ 2014 primary was just 13.3% of registered voters (9.6% Republican, 3.7% Democratic), a dip from 16.3% turnout in the 2012 primary.The state’s low primary turnout is especially troubling because in the vast majority of these races, primaries are the decisive election. Of Texas’ 36 U.S. House seats, 35 will be safe for the incumbent party in November. This means that in all but one race, voters in one party’s primary will control representation for the entire district, as their chosen candidate’s victory in the general election is all but preordained. Unfortunately, primary races in Texas are not particularly competitive either. Approximately half of Texas’ primary races were uncontested in 2014. To make the problem worse, many of these primary races will require costly runoff elections, as no candidate reached 50% of the vote in the initial round. These runoffs are almost certain to have even lower turnout. In sum, Texas’ elections are expensive affairs with largely predetermined outcomes and elect candidates that represent only a fraction of the few voters who bother to participate.Fortunately, there are many proactive steps Texas communities can take toward improving voter participation, protecting access, and expanding suffrage through FairVote’s Promote Our Vote project. This bottom up approach invites campuses, organizations, and local governments to take an affirmative stance on voting as a fundamental right. It encourages the creation of citizen task forces that research and develop innovative pro-suffrage practices and policies like restoring felon voting rights and enacted same-day registration. Such task forces have already been established in Maryland and Florida, and are in the pipeline in states like Massachusetts, Virginia, Wisconsin, and North Carolina.Low turnout and other deficiencies in representation can also be addressed through broader structural reforms. The use of multi-seat elections with ranked choice voting (a form of fair representation voting) congressional and state legislative elections would ensure competitive races and fair representation for all Texas voters. Under fair representation voting, every voter would have a chance to cast a meaningful ballot in every election. Runoffs would be eliminated, as ranked choice voting allows voters to express their full preferences among candidates in one trip to the polls. Such a system would not only improve voter participation, but would also empower voters across the ideological spectrum to elect candidates that represent their beliefs in proportion to their share of the electorate.

In one Maryland town, November 5, 2013 was no ordinary Election Day: it marked the beginning of a historic expansion of suffrage rights to 16- and 17-year-olds. On October 30th - the start of the city's early voting period - Takoma Park became the first city in the United States to open its polls in a general election to residents after they turn 16.

17-year-old James Fair fills out an exit survey after voting for the first time.

They Showed Up and Showed Off

Voter turnout in Takoma Park's municipal election was notably low, a likely result of no contested races or referendums. Nevertheless, 16- and 17-year-old residents still came out to vote.

Turnout rates were significantly higher among 16- and 17-year-olds than that of the overall population. The official turnout number of the age group is 59, approximately 17% of eligible voters under 18 - which is double the 8.5% turnout rate of eligible voters 18 and up. The difference in turnout is stark when you consider registration rolls. Close to 42% of registered people under 18 cast ballots, which is four times the rate of registered residents 18 and older who voted.

Residents in their 20s had the lowest rates of participation. In both the 2009 and 2011 elections, fewer than 30 people voted who were between the ages of 18 and 25, which is between 1% and 2% of eligible voters in that age group. Only 25 people between 18 and 25 voted in the city’s election this year. In the 2011 city election, the turnout number was even worse; only 14 people in that age range cast ballots. Local supporters of the lowered voting age believe introducing young people to voting before they turn 18 will increase turnout among people in their 20s because 16- and 17-year-old voters will continue to vote once they turn 18.

During early voting on Friday, teenager Alanna Natanson became the first person in the United States under 18 to cast a ballot in a general election. While originally nervous that the process would be a difficult undertaking, Natanson said voting was easy in Takoma Park.

FairVote also spoke with 17-year-old Nick Byron at the polls on Election Day. Byron had advocated 16-year-old voting when the charter amendment came before the Takoma Park City Council last spring, and continues to be an outspoken supporter of the policy. “16- and 17-year-olds should be able to vote because they are rooted in their communities. 18-year-olds are going to college, while we are living with our parents, taking civics classes, and thinking about the city,” Byron explained.

Right to Vote Resolutions Spark New and Innovative Policies

The seeds of this change were planted last winter, when Councilmember Tim Male began crafting a Right to Vote Resolution -- in partnership with FairVote’s Promote Our Vote project. The resolution called for a constitutional right to vote, established a voting task force, and took stances on a variety of voting rights issues. By sparking city-wide dialogue about what it means to vote and be civically engaged, the resolution catalyzed efforts to lower the voting age. As Male explained to FairVote, the Right to Vote Resolution created an environment where the idea of a lower voting age – one that several of his colleagues initially treated with skepticism – was taken seriously.

By spring, the city was engaged in a lengthy debate over the charter amendment that, among other changes, lowered the voting age in city elections. Central to this discussion was the city’s youth turnout crisis. A mere 14 voters between the ages of 18 and 25 showed up to cast a ballot in Takoma Park’s last contested mayoral race. That dismal number means that more than 99% of Takoma Park residents between the ages of 18 and 25 did not vote. While the city agreed that it had to improve youth turnout, lowering the voting age seemed so revolutionary that residents were split on the issue. “To most people, lowering the voting age is a second look issue,” FairVote’s Director Rob Richie said. “While the knee-jerk reaction is to reject to idea, all evidence suggests that cities will increase turnout by allowing citizens to cast their first vote after turning 16.” A detailed study on voting age supports this claim. In Denmark, research showed that 18-year-olds were far more likely to cast their first vote than 19-year-olds, and that every month of extra age made voters less likely to turn out for their first election. People who start voting early tend to keep voting throughout their lifetimes. As a result, casting a first vote at 16 increases the likelihood of becoming a lifelong voter. The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) of Tufts’ University also supported the proposal. CIRCLE’s Director Peter Levine wrote the mayor and city council a letter endorsing the proposed change. Levine asserted that “16 and 17-year-olds are not too young to vote.” He cited a study finding that 16 and 17-year-olds’ political knowledge is about the same as 21-year-olds’, and quite close to the average knowledge of all adults. Perhaps the most influential advocates of this policy were the youth of Takoma Park. Many attended the council meetings and testified on local issues about which they were passionate. Other young people produced videos describing how they had been involved in their community and what it would mean to them to have the right to vote. Some signed petitions and rallied support among their friends and families. Their civic engagement and commitment to advancing the change helped sway public opinion in favor of lowering the voting age. The Beginning of a Movement

In May, the proposal passed with a 6-1 vote. By November, 16- and 17-year-olds were voting alongside adults in Takoma Park elections.

While Takoma Park has become the first city to extend voting rights to residents after they turn 16, it’s unlikely to be the last. Following the decision to lower the voting age in Takoma Park, CIRCLE convened a commission of experts on youth voting and civic knowledge to release a report on innovations for youth engagement. Lowering the voting age in municipal and state elections was among the group’s recommendations for improving youth voter participation. As election and youth experts endorse a lower voting age, we’ll likely to see more cities expanding suffrage to young people.